+1 to do this with something like "ruby-packagers-utils"
Providing simple mocks would make packaging easier but could very easily
mess up the environment at times especially if I install ruby-devel to
build native gems that I download with the gem tool even though we only
need (and probably even want it) only in the packaging (mock) environment.
On 09/05/2019 12:17, Jun Aruga wrote:
> I agree the intent to create fake libraries for SimpleCov, Coveralls
> and Bundler.
> It makes each rubygem package easy and clean. That's good.
>
> But ruby-devel is used for the use case to build the rubygem that has
> a C extension, with ruby.h
> I think that ruby-devel's "devel" means user's development, not
> packager's development
> If we add the fake libraries, users are confused to refer the fake libraries.
>
> I assume that the fake libraries are used for the use case of our rpm
> packaging development only.
>
> I would prefer to create new ruby's sub RPM package or separated RPM
> package such as
> * "ruby-packagers-utils": inspired from scl-utils
> or
> * "ruby-packagers-devel"
> or
> * "ruby-packagers-fake-libs"
> or etc
>
> Then each rubygem-foo.spec use like this if it is necessary.
>
> rubygem-foo.spec
>
> ```
> BuildRequires: ruby-packagers-utils
> ```
>
>